Using poetry to read the past : unedited Byzantine verse scholia on historians in the margins of medieval manuscripts

(1)

a mi abuelo Elso y a mi abuela Lea

Promotor Prof. dr. Kristoffel Demoen Vakgroep Letterkunde Copromotor Prof. dr. Floris Bernard

Vakgroep Letterkunde

(2)

Nederlandse vertaling:

Poëzie gebruiken om het verleden te lezen: onuitgegeven Byzantijnse scholia in vers in de marge van middeleeuwse manuscripten

Cover image: Vat. Pal. gr. 93, f.169v

(3)

Using Poetry to Read the Past

Unedited Byzantine Verse Scholia on Historians in the Margins of Medieval Manuscripts

Julián Bértola

Proefschrift voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van Doctor in de letterkunde 2021

(4)

(5)

Acknowledgements

The last days of 2016 I moved from Argentina to Belgium to start a PhD at Ghent University. I was granted a fellowship by the research project “Poetry from the Margins.

Literary, linguistic, philological and cultural-historical analysis of a new corpus of Byzantine book epigrams (800-1453)” to study the reception of ancient Greek literature in Byzantine book epigrams within the framework of the Database of Byzantine Book Epigrams. From the very first moment, the people behind DBBE made this transition smooth and, until today, they make me feel a proud member of this wonderful team. My deepest thanks go to Kristoffel Demoen, who welcomed and guided me through this whole process, giving me sensible words of encouragement and advice. He was a patient reader, attentive and responsive, without letting me believe for one second that I was being annoying or inefficient. Later in my trajectory, I was incredibly lucky to coincide with the return of Floris Bernard to Ghent and to become his student. A renowned scholar in the field of Byzantine poetry, Floris only had wise remarks and warm support to offer me, for which I am sincerely thankful. The combination and chemistry of these two supervisors have redounded to the benefit of this dissertation to a degree impossible to overestimate.

Likewise, I only have words of gratitude for my fellow DBBEings. Rachele Ricceri in her role of “godmother” helped me throughout with many practicalities and always urged me to participate in the academic world. Maria Tomadaki was always ready to share her insights in our many common interests and read many passages of this dissertation with reassuring and enthusiastic comments. Ilse de Vos prepared my arrival in Ghent and has been keeping DBBE lively and busy all this time. In Sien De Groot I found a lifelong friend.

DBBE never ceased to offer me nice people to share experiences and knowledge with: Julie Boeten, Sarah-Helena Van den Brande, Anne-Sophie Rouckhout, Cristina Cocola and many others who have taken part in this enterprise. Among these I should also mention Nina Sietis, who generously let me know about some epigrams on Herodotus relevant for my research and guided me in Rome and the Vatican Library. DBBE is a team of knowledgeable and inspiring scholars that have taught me a lot about teamwork and

(6)

collegiality. The international members assisted me in coping with the anxieties of expatriates, whereas the Belgians showed me the kindness of this people.

The same heart-warming considerations can be extrapolated to my colleagues from the Greek and Latin sections of the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, with whom I came in contact through academic collaborations and bonding activities over the years, including the monthly birthday lunches, coffees in the kitchen and drinks after work. The full list of these colleagues with whom I shared results, opinions, professional concerns or simply a nice time would probably be too long; any partial list would be unfair. I do feel obliged to mention the names of Olivier Demerre and Julie Van Pelt, true confidants for whom I feel warm affection. I should also mention that in the last years another research group in Ghent University (EVWRIT) has offered me good friends. Antonia Apostolakou has helped me with admirable skill to improve many passages of this dissertation that go unacknowledged, besides offering me comfort and support.

A number of international scholars have shown unmerited interest in my work and have generously given me their views on several points and the opportunity to share my research and gain new knowledge. My thanks go to Alexander Alexakis, Reinhart Ceulemans, Andrea Cuomo, Koen De Temmerman, Martin Hinterberger, Christian Høgel, Matthew Kinloch, Marc Lauxtermann, Divna Manolova, Ingela Nilsson, Paolo Odorico, Stratis Papaioannou, Aglae Pizzone, Andreas Rhoby, Filippo Ronconi, Raimondo Tocci, Baukje van den Berg, Peter van Nuffelen, Emilie van Opstall, Milan Vukašinović and Nikos Zagklas, among others. The fundamental stone of my career was laid in my alma mater, Universidad de Buenos Aires. I will never be grateful enough to my professor Pablo Cavallero, who initiated me into Byzantine literature and textual criticism. I would like to express my gratitude and affection to other Argentinian professors and scholars here as well: Agustín Ávila, Tomás Fernández, Diego Fittipaldi, José Maksimczuk, Ezequiel Rivas and Analía Sapere.

Last but not least, the love of family and friends was a sine qua non for the completion of this dissertation. I will proceed now in Spanish. No tengo palabras para agradecer a mi mamá y a mi papá, que siempre mostraron interés por lo que hago y nunca me dejaron pensar que no estoy a la altura, y a mis hermanos, a quienes más extrañé estando en Europa. En la dedicatoria de este libro a mis abuelos se condensa también la gratitud y afecto a toda mi familia, en especial a Benjamín, a quien acompañé a la distancia con todo mi corazón en un momento de gran felicidad en su vida.

(7)

List of Abbreviations

AFLPer Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia di Perugia

BEiÜ Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung. 1 = Rhoby, A.

Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken. Vienna, 2009. 2 = Rhoby, A. Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst. Nebst Addenda zu Band 1. Vienna, 2010. 3 = Rhoby, A. Byzantinische Epigramme auf Stein. Nebst Addenda zu den Bänden 1 und 2. Vienna, 2015. 4 = Rhoby, A.

Ausgewählte byzantinische Epigramme in illuminierten Handschriften: Verse und ihre "inschriftliche" Verwendung in Codices des 9. bis 15. Jahrhunderts.

Nach Vorarbeiten von Rudolf Stefec. Vienna, 2018.

BF Byzantinische Forschungen

BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies BollClass Bollettino dei Classici

BollGrott Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata

BPEC Bollettino del Comitato per la preparazione dell’edizione nazionale dei classici greci e latini

BSGRT Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift

CCSG Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca C&M Classica et Mediaevalia

CFHB Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae

CPG Von Leutsch, E. L. and Schneidewin, F. G. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, 1-2. Göttingen, 1839-1851.

CSHB Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae

DBBE Database of Byzantine Book Epigrams (https://dbbe.ugent.be) DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers

Hdt. Herodotus’ Histories, ed. Rosén (1987-1997).

(8)

JÖB Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik

JÖBG Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft Lampe Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1961.

LBG Trapp, E. et al. Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität besonders des 9.-12.

Jahrhunderts. Vienna, 1994-2017.

LSJ Liddell, H. G., Scott R. et al., A Greek-English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement. Oxford, 1996.

MEG Medioevo greco

NE Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων

NC Niketas Choniates’ History, ed. van Dieten (1975).

ODB Kazhdan, A. P. et al., The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York and Oxford, 1991.

PG Migne, J.-P. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. Paris, 1857-1866.

PLP Trapp, E. et al. Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. Vienna, 1976- 1996.

RGK E. Gamillscheg et al., Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800-1600, 1-3.

Vienna, 1981, 1989, 1997.

RSBN Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici TIB Tabula Imperii Byzantini

TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu) WBS Wiener Byzantinistische Studien

WSt Wiener Studien

(9)

List of Tables

Table 1 Synopsis of the chronology of the manuscripts and their contexts of circulation (Part 1) ... 60 Table 2 Appendix metrica (Part 2) ... 159

(10)

(11)

List of Figures

Figure 1 Laur. Plut. 70.3, f. 8r. ... 26

Figure 2 Laur. Plut. 70.6, f. 96v ... 46

Figure 3 Vindob. Hist. gr. 53, f. 324v ... 97

(12)

(13)

Introduction

This dissertation is about book epigrams, even if the title conceals it. Book epigrams are defined as poems in and on books, because the book constitutes both the subject of the epigram and the material support where it is “inscribed”. This explanation would not have been necessary for a Byzantine audience, since “an ἐπίγραμμα in the Byzantine sense of the word” is either “a verse inscription or a book epigram”.¹ However, the label of

“book epigram” helps us to distinguish between poems devoted to the books where they are found, and those epigrams inscribed elsewhere or gathered in collections out of their original or intended context. In one word, book epigrams are different from metrical inscriptions on other objects and from literary epigrams lato sensu, irrespective of whether these literary epigrams refer to books or not. But what does it mean that book epigrams are devoted to books or refer to them? The typical subjects of book epigrams include the processes of production and circulation of the manuscripts that contain them.

They allude, for example, to the roles of the scribe, the commissioner, the owner or the donator. In addition, they may refer to the content of the book, as they praise the author or the oeuvre, or simply announce the matter of the text. And how exactly are book epigrams “inscribed” in the manuscripts? They often play the roles of paratexts, as they may occupy the place of titles and colophons, which open, divide, close, organize a text.² In practice, the standard location of book epigrams is either at the beginning or the end of books, oeuvres, chapters. Moreover, many book epigrams are displayed with distinctive layouts and scripts. Besides, these instrumental texts can be easily reused from

1 Lauxtermann (2003: 132). On book epigrams, see primarily Lauxtermann (2003: 26-34, 197-212), Bernard and Demoen (2019) and DBBE.

2 The concept of paratext, coined by Genette (1987), was explicitly meant to serve the analysis of printed books, but it has proven to be applicable to medieval texts, see e.g. Bianconi (2009), Demoen (2013; 2019), Lauxtermann (2018), Bernard and Demoen (2019). For a thorough and thought-provoking investigation of Genette’s categories when applied to manuscripts, and in particular to Greek New Testament manuscripts, see now Andrist (2018), with further bibliography.

(20)

manuscript to manuscript and adapted to new contexts. Paratexts seldom function as mere additional textual marks, since they may as well exert control over the main text and prescribe the way in which it should be read.

Against this background, it will be evident that this dissertation approaches a sub-type of Byzantine book epigrams. Verse scholia are, indeed, book epigrams commenting on specific passages of the main text. Accordingly, they appear next to the sections of text to which they react.³ These are, in fact, the two main characteristics of verse scholia. First, contrary to most book epigrams, their regular position is in the external margins of the folios. Second, unlike other book epigrams, which normally consider the production and circulation, the content, author or readership of the related text as a whole, verse scholia refer only to particular passages of texts and are attached alongside them in the manuscripts.

Naturally, verse scholia are also a special case of scholia, since they are written in verse.

But why are these scholia written in verse? A first answer to this question brings us back to the Byzantine conception of epigrams. In Byzantine culture, verses are inscribed everywhere from monuments to minute seals. This proliferation of verse has been called

“epigrammatic habit”.⁴ In Byzantium, poetry is used with different purposes and in manifold ways and contexts that may challenge modern sensibility. Historiography in verse is a good case in point.⁵ Poetry was part of the intellectual training and thus associated with education and status, but the same can be said about other disciplines involving rhetoric in Byzantium. What ultimately defines Byzantine poetry is verse, that is, the more or less rigorous observance of a certain metre and the repetition of a rhythm, often visually expressed (e.g. by means of punctuation, accentuation and line breaks), which also entails a modulation in syntax and vocabulary.⁶

These characteristics of verse enhance expressivity and evidence the literariness of a given text. This is especially important for our verse scholia. Scholia as well as other kinds of marginalia in Greek medieval manuscripts have long been edited and read as subsidiary instruments to interpret the main text in question. Marginal notes were also perused as

3 I use verse scholium, epigram and poem as synonyms throughout the dissertation. The denomination of verse scholia is taken from Kaldellis (2015: 65). I follow the conventional practice of calling scholia the commentaries found in the margins of the manuscripts next to the passages concerned, see e.g. ODB s. v. Scholia and Dyck (2008). However, the reduction of scholia to only these cases is a modern conception: see Lundon (1997), Dickey (2007: 11 n. 25), Montana (2011: 105-110).

4 Magdalino (2012: 32). The same phenomenon had been labelled similarly (“attitudine epigrammatica”) by Mazzucchi (1995: 202). For an overview of the variety of objects with metrical inscriptions, see e.g. BEiÜ, Wassiliou-Seibt (2011-2016), Drpić (2016).

5 On the verse chronicle of Ephraim of Ainos, see below Part 2.

6 For what verse means in Byzantine literature, see e.g. Jeffreys (2009), Lauxtermann (2009), Magdalino (2012:

30-33), Bernard (2014: 31-57), Drpić (2016: 21-25), Bernard and Demoen (forthcoming).

(21)

repositories of ancient textual variants and lost commentaries. This practice corresponded to the perception of Byzantium as responsible for an uneventful, if not pernicious, preservation and transmission of the classics through the Middle Ages. This vision was opposed to a certain extent by scholars interested in Byzantine scholarship on classical Greek literature.⁷ Similarly, scholars investigating Byzantine book culture have found in scholia and other marginalia a fertile ground for research on the practices of reading in Byzantium as performed in the manuscripts by writing down notes and commentaries in their margins.⁸ These notes reproduce the contexts of copying, circulation and use of manuscripts. The reader, pen in hand, combined intense reading with utilitarian and creative writing. The annotations of the manuscripts were generally provoked by the act of reading the main text, but governed by specific purposes and ideological agendas. In this respect, the verse form in our verse scholia indicates that something more is at stake in these texts than subordinate exegesis or superfluous scribbling. Scholia that adopt the linguistic register, rhythmical structure and rhetorical devices of Byzantine poetry deserve to be studied as literature in their own right.

The corpus of this dissertation is mainly constituted by Byzantine verse scholia on historians. This corpus, in turn, structures the dissertation. Part 1 is devoted to verse scholia on Herodotus and other ancient historians. Part 2 focuses on the scholia in verse to a Byzantine historian, Niketas Choniates. Along with verse scholia, I also consider book epigrams and other types of unmetrical marginalia at large. The relevance of this corpus can be seen through different lenses. First, I intend to investigate the attitude of the poems towards the classical tradition, which contributes to define the Byzantine identity through the centuries.⁹ Byzantine verse scholia on ancient historians frequently embody and perform the Byzantine appropriation of the Hellenic past. Moreover, the Byzantines’

interests in ancient historians qua source materials and stylistic templates shaped the corpus of ancient historiography as we know it.¹⁰ Second, the choice of verse scholia should be understood within the renewed interest in the marginalia of the manuscripts of Byzantine historians, because marginalia often reveal the compositional methods of

7 See e.g. Smith (1996).

8 See especially Cavallo (2006: 67-82, 133-137). Some valuable endeavours have been made to understand how specific sets of Byzantine marginalia function in their own socio-historical context with due attention to the material reality of the manuscripts: e.g. Webb (1997), Budelmann (2002), Mazzucchi (1999; 2003; 2004), Zorzi (2004) and Mondrain (2005). See also the seminal work by Odorico (1985).

9 See e.g. Kaldellis (2007), Rapp (2008). A more recent publication by Kaldellis (2015) collects and translates several scholia; its introduction includes a strong programmatic plea for the study of the Byzantine reception of ancient historians.

10 Kaldellis (2012).

(22)

these historians.¹¹ The margins of manuscripts are exceptional witnesses of the material conditions of the intellectual work of Byzantine authors.¹² Third, the present reassessment of marginalia on historians also corresponds to a new theoretical approach to Byzantine historiography, less concerned with the accuracy and objectivity of the historical facts and more aware of their literary representation.¹³ This shift follows a general trend in the study of historiography, which is now more widely considered as a social construct irremediably mediated by language and cast into narrative. Scholia, as well as paraphrases of historical works and chronicles themselves, have been once disparaged as imitative, repetitive and derivative. A new approach to Byzantine scholia on historians can bring to the fore the compositional processes through which the readers selected, supplemented and manipulated the inherited historical material in accordance with the political and ideological necessities of their own time. Once again, the verse form of verse scholia underscores the artificial if not artistic nature of these processes.

One last, more practical factor explains my choice to investigate verse scholia on historians: the existence of a significant number of unedited verse scholia on Herodotus and Niketas Choniates. The main contribution of my dissertation is to make these epigrams available for the first time in modern critical editions. The presentation of these texts further structures the dissertation. The two main cycles of epigrams occupy a central position in each part. They are preceded by the description of the manuscripts that transmit the epigrams, in which I pay attention to material aspects and other textual elements, especially marginalia. In doing so, I draw from the methodology of new trends in medieval philology that propose to understand manuscripts as textual and material units, instable and dynamic, historically situated multifarious objects. After establishing the relationships of the manuscripts with one another from the shared readings of the epigrams and other information, I display these connections in a stemma. However, the reconstruction of a stemma does not imply the rejection of the copies of a model as irrelevant. While seeking to understand the precise circumstances in which the poems were written down in the manuscripts, this dissertation is equally interested in the later

11 See, for example, the recent editions of George Kedrenos (Tartaglia 2016) and Theodore Skoutariotes (Tocci 2015). Some manuscripts of Kedrenos’ chronicle are furnished with additions copied in the margins, which in later manuscripts find their way into the main text. The fluid boundaries between reading and writing serve the process of permanent re-elaboration of chronicles (Tartaglia 2016: 58-61). Similarly, the codex unicus of Skoutariotes’ chronicle has been identified as the autograph Arbeitsexemplar that eventually developed into a larger chronicle by Skoutariotes (the so-called Synopsis Sathas, see below Part 2). The editor convincingly reconstructs this process from the marginalia of the codex unicus (Tocci 2015: 54*-63*, 102*-111*). See also Odorico (2012).

12 Pérez Martín (2017: 42-44).

13 See e.g. the collective volumes edited by Odorico, Agapitos and Hinterberger (2006) and Macrides (2016). See also Nilsson (2006b).

(23)

transmission of the texts. Accordingly, I record as many variants as possible in the critical apparatus and the preliminary sections. In the case of Herodotus, this methodological principle allows me, for example, to shed light on the manuscript tradition of some recentiores, as well as on the journey of Laur. Plut. 70.6 from Thessalonike to Italy. In the case of Niketas Choniates, the conclusions that I reach concerning the epigrams correspond to what we already knew about the transmission of the main text. In fact, our findings also confirm that the proposed author of the epigrams, Ephraim of Ainos, worked with a manuscript that he was already thought to have consulted for his chronicle.

At the same time, I remain conservative regarding the text of the poems that I print.

This means that I choose the most authoritative readings trying to interfere as little as possible. This also applies to textual features such as punctuation, accentuation and orthography, which are often related to metrical issues and have traditionally been normalized or disregarded as deviations from the conventional classical Greek norms to the detriment of the medieval use. This methodological principle poses some problems, which are fully discussed in the section preceding the edition of the cycle in Part 2 (Chapter 3.3). As regards punctuation, for example, the main challenge is to render the reality of the manuscripts without hampering the understanding of the text by a non- specialist. It is easier to decide which punctuation to follow when there is only one authoritative manuscript, as in the cycle of Part 1. However, when there are two main manuscripts, as in Part 2, and they sometimes differ, some criteria must be chosen. The solution I find for Part 2 is to reproduce some general tendencies that emerge from the use of the punctuation signs in the two main manuscripts in a more homogenous, reasonable and simple way, whenever my intervention is required. So much for the editorial remarks. Or perhaps I should add here that the spelling of Byzantine names follows in general ODB, whereas the classical Greek names follow the established convention in English (hence “Herodotus” but “Ephraim of Ainos”), and that all translations are mine unless otherwise indicated.

This dissertation is thus composed of two separate parts sporadically connected through cross-references. In each part, the emphasis is put on the critical editions of new material. However, our observations and commentaries to both cycles of epigrams consistently reveal that the margins of manuscripts can set the stage for the emergence of pieces of literature dependent on a given text to which they react, but motivated by specific purposes and embedded in the material context of the manuscript and in the socio-historical context in which they were produced. In the following, I will investigate instances of how the Byzantines dealt with their classical heritage and how they reinterpreted a more recent past through the socio-cultural prisms of their time.

(24)

(25)

Part 1 Herodotus

(26)

The reception of Herodotus in the Greek Middle Ages remains understudied. This is not the occasion to attempt such endeavour, but I will briefly survey the scholarship on the subject to better contextualize the epigrams that constitute the core of this section. First and foremost, the research on the textual transmission of the Histories has given us some hints of the uses and many insights into the circulation of this work in Byzantium.¹ The complex and multifarious tradition of Herodotus has schematically been divided in two main families. The Florentine family includes the main manuscripts Laur. Plut. 70.3 (A), Angel. gr. 83 (B) and Laur. Conv. Soppr. 207 (C). The Roman family encompasses the oldest Vat. gr. 2369 (D) and many recentiores, among which Vat. Pal. gr. 215 (E), Vat. gr. 123 (R), Vat. gr. 122 (X), Vat. Pal. gr. 176 (Y), etc. However, the scholarship focusing on the history of the text of Herodotus’ Histories does not always delve into the particular contexts and ways in which it was read.

When it comes to the role of Herodotus in Byzantine education and as a model of style and the Ionic dialect, no comprehensive overview has been written yet.² It is significant that there is not a single chapter on Byzantium in a recent volume on the subject of the afterlife of Herodotus.³ The general accounts of the readership of Herodotus in the Middle Ages rather cursorily pass through the Byzantine period to bridge the gap between Antiquity and the Renaissance.⁴ To my knowledge, the few pages by Claudia Rapp in her exposition of the impact of the classical past on the Byzantine identity are the best summary to understand how Byzantines read Herodotus with specific purposes in mind.⁵ For example, the intellectual trajectory of Herodotus’ Histories in the Greek Middle Ages is connected with major enterprises of the so-called Macedonian renaissance (9th-10th centuries), such as Photios’ Bibliotheca (cod. 60), the Souda lexicon (η 536), the Anthologia Palatina (14.69, 76, 78-99, 112) and the excerpts of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos.⁶

The Byzantine reception of ancient historians at large has received more attention, as regards the copying and reading of works of this genre, as well as the creative imitation

1 In this respect, the works of Aristide Colonna, Giovan Battista Alberti, Bertrand Hemmerdinger and, more recently, Rafaella Cantore have made great progress, which I cite passim throughout this section, to which should be added editions such as the ones by Stein (1869-1871) and Rosén (1987-1997). Other editions, for example the ones by Legrand and Hude, or the more recent study by Wilson (2015), which is complementary to his own edition appeared in the same year, reveal themselves less useful for our purposes as they do not pay much attention to recentiores. See also Pasquali (1962: 306-318).

2 As noted by Jeffreys (2019).

3 Priestley and Zali (2016).

4 See e.g. Bichler and Rollinger (2000: 120-121), Wilson (2015: xxii-xxiii).

5 Rapp (2008: 129-132).

6 See Németh (2018). Note that the entries of the Souda explaining Herodotus are recorded in Rosén’s apparatus (see below). On ancient scholarship on Herodotus, see also Dickey (2007: 54).

(27)

(mimesis) of the classics in Byzantine historical writing.⁷ In particular, the fate of Thucydides in Byzantium has been the subject of recent investigations, chiefly focusing on his role as a model for rhetoric and the Attic dialect.⁸ Accordingly, the scholia on Thucydides have been largely edited, as we will see, including the edition and study of the verse scholia of Tzetzes in manuscript E (Heidelberg, Pal. gr. 252).⁹ More recently, the scholia vetustiora on Thucydides were published, whereas the scholia recentiora, i.e. the properly Byzantine scholia, which were envisaged in a second volume, still await publication.¹⁰

As for the scholia on Herodotus, they have been edited only partially. Heinrich Stein published some of them in an appendix at the end of the second volume of his edition, after the Histories and before the Herodotean vocabulary.¹¹ Haiim Rosén fitted the scholia in a special section of the apparatus instead.¹² More recently, Cantore masterfully edited a vast number of marginalia and interlinear glosses, especially from manuscripts A, B and β (the common model of most recentiores from the Roman family), in an effort to understand the genetic relationship of the manuscripts and their subsequent instances of contamination.¹³ More limited sets of scholia have been examined separately, as for example in a seminal work by Maria Jagoda Luzzatto, who unearthed traces of John Tzetzes’ scholarship in Laur. Plut. 70.3 (see Chapter 1 below).¹⁴ Giuseppe De Gregorio has worked with a manuscript that contains some of our epigrams and was later annotated by Palla Strozzi (Vat. Urb. gr. 88; see Chapter 2 below).¹⁵ The always-insightful Carlo Maria Mazzucchi published a set of “conversations with dead people”, as he characterized the scholia according to the Byzantine perception, from the margins of Vat. gr. 123 (a manuscript from the Roman family with further traces of Tzetzean influence; see Chapter 1 below).¹⁶

7 See e.g. Jeffreys (1979), Scott (1981), Maltese (1995), Pérez Martín (2002: 133-147) and Kaldellis (2012; 2015).

8 See e.g. Reinsch (2006), Kennedy (2018).

9 See Hude (1927), Luzzatto (1999). Among the not obviously Tzetzean scholia, there are some other verses edited by Hude. See e.g. the two dodecasyllables on Thucydides’ Histories 7.28.1 in Monac. gr. 430 (f. 214v): κἀγώ σε θρηνῶ καὶ κατοικτείρω, πόλις·/ καὶ γὰρ πατρὶς πέφυκας τῆς ἐμῆς φύτλης (Hude 1927: 382.28-29). See also the eight verses at the end of the second last book of Thucydides’ Histories (Hude 1927: 406.22-30;

https://www.dbbe.ugent.be/types/4649).

10 Kleinlogel (2019).

11 Stein (1871: 429-440). See also below poem 5.16 in Appendix 2.

12 Rosén (1987-1997). Two additional apparatus gather the testimonia of the so-called indirect tradition, which offer some further clues to trace down the medieval interests in Herodotus. See also the index in Rosén (1997:

456-467).

13 Cantore (2012; 2013).

14 Luzzatto (2000).

15 De Gregorio (2002).

16 Mazzucchi (2002).

(28)

Some of the marginalia brought to light by these scholars are written in verse, as for example the lines first singled out by Colonna in the lower margin of f. 39r in Vat. gr. 2369 (10th century), which Vassis in turn identified as two dodecasyllabic verses.¹⁷ Cantore has approached the poem once more in her attempt to extricate the two scripts from the 10th century that respectively copied (D) and corrected (D²) the manuscript.¹⁸ The beginning of the poem is preceded by a reference mark (·/) repeated in the text at Hdt. 2.44.2, but there is no clear error in this passage that would have motivated the verse scholium. I print the epigram again here:¹⁹

Τῆς διαλέκτου μὴ μαθὼν πεῖραν τάχα πέσῃς τὸ ῥῆμα καὶ λάβῃς λύπην γράφων.

If perchance you have not learned any experience of the dialect you will stumble and you will get hurt in copying the verb.

My interpretation of these verses is slightly different, but it fits well in the argument convincingly outlined by Cantore as regards the cooperation in two stages of D and D². The epigram could easily be the reaction of the correcting hand to the work of the main scribe. According to my translation, however, the address is more than a recommendation. Cantore forces a bit the syntax and takes the μὴ as modifying the subjunctive verbs in the second verse. Admittedly, the syntax of the epigram is not so straightforward, but independent subjunctives not rarely function as futures in Byzantine Greek.²⁰ Therefore, in a more polemical tone, the epigram would rebuke the scribe. This is one example of the emergence of verse in the marginalia of Herodotus.

This part of the dissertation is devoted to the first critical edition of a new cycle of Byzantine verse scholia displayed in the margins of a group of manuscripts of Herodotus’

Histories. In Chapter 1, I deal with the verse scholia of a well-known author, John Tzetzes, to whom our cycle has once been erroneously attributed. In passing, I present a new verse scholium in Laur. Plut. 70.3. In Chapter 2, I introduce the new epigrams, which have never been studied or edited, I give a brief account of their content and I formulate a hypothesis about the context of their composition. Finally, I offer the critical edition of the poems.

17 Colonna (1953: 16 n. 1), Vassis (2005: 740). The epigram is in fact written in two lines.

18 Cantore (2013: 136-138).

19 I regularize accents (missing in λάβης and λύπην; πείραν in the manuscript), breathings (missing in ῥῆμα) and the iota subscriptum (absent in the manuscript). I also write the initial in upper case. I consulted the manuscript in the Vatican Library.

20 See e.g. poem 34.5 on Niketas Choniates in Part 2.

(29)

Chapter 1 Tzetzes’ verse scholia

John Tzetzes must probably be one of the best known Byzantine authors for non- Byzantinists. Thanks to his numerous commentaries on and allusions to ancient authors, he is a recurrent reference for classicists. Similarly, his boastful erudition and aggressive sense of competition frequently crystallize into a strong authorial figure that may appeal to the modern reader. However, the vastness of his work and his context and motivations for writing remain still a fruitful field of research for Byzantinists. This chapter will address one particular aspect of Tzetzes’ literary and didactic endeavours, namely verse scholia. In doing so, it will also try to shed light on the general stances Tzetzes adopts towards the Hellenic cultural heritage, especially on the interplay between the texts commented upon and Tzetzes’ persona and milieu.¹ The ultimate goal of this chapter is to set the parameters within which we should understand the verse scholia of Tzetzes and establish their authorship.

A major part of Tzetzes’ literary output, indeed, consists of commentaries or texts somehow subordinated to others. Consider, for example, the wide corpus of scholia devoted to Aristophanes, Hesiod and Lycophron or the traces of larger commentaries on Pindar, Oppian and the tragedians.² There are also the Exegesis of the (first book of the) Iliad, the Allegories both of the Iliad and the Odyssey and works strongly dependent on the

1 The best comprehensive modern monograph on this author is Wendel (1948: 1959-2011), although many valuable contributions have been published since then. For Tzetzes’ works on the classics, see Kazhdan and Epstein (1985: 133-138), Budelmann (2002), Kaldellis (2007: 301-307; 2009), Pontani (2015: 378-385).

2 On Aristophanes, see Massa Positano (1960), Holwerda (1960), Koster (1962). On Hesiod, Gaisford (1823: 1-459).

On Lycophron, Scheer (1908). On Pindar, Drachmann (1927: 205), Luzzatto (1998: 84-86). On Oppian, Bussemaker (1849: 260-375). On the tragedians, Allegrini (1971-1972), Bevilacqua (1973-1974), Mastronarde (2017: 77-89).

(30)

classical tradition, such as the Carmina Iliaca or the Theogonia.³ Tzetzes comments not only on ancient authors, but also on himself. We have Tzetzean annotations that clarify his Carmina Iliaca, his Theogonia, his Exegesis of the Iliad, his Allegories of the Iliad and of the Odyssey, his Letters and his Histories.⁴ And what else is the Histories, the most representative of his works, if not an extensive versified commentary on the Letters?⁵

Tzetzes himself is the author of typical book epigrams, such as the ones on the tragedians, preceding his Exegesis of the Iliad, surrounding his scholia to Aristophanes’

Wealth in different manuscripts, or attached to his scholia on Lycophron, Oppian and Hesiod’s Works and Days.⁶ He is also a main exponent of verse scholia and surely one of the few, if not the only one, among the writers of verse scholia whose authorship can be easily detected. Verse scholia are, as a rule, anonymous.⁷ However, the literary production of Tzetzes is characterized by acerbic gestures of self-assertion and promotion and a spirit ready for polemics that, together with formal and stylistic elements, help us to recognize the works of his hand. This degree of self-awareness as an author and Tzetzes’

construction of himself as an authority go together with his didactic intention, which reflects the teacher-student relation but also the competition among teachers.⁸ In general, verse scholia react in a more spontaneous and emotional way to the main text, adopting attitudes of awe, disbelief or reprobation at the author or the text, or setting comparisons with current affairs. Within this scenario, the display of erudition and the didactic purposes are typical Tzetzean hallmarks.

3 Exegesis: Papathomopoulos (2007); Allegories of the Iliad: Boissonade (1851), Goldwyn and Kokkini (2015);

Allegories of the Odyssey: Hunger (1955; 1956), Goldwyn and Kokkini (2019); Carmina Iliaca: Leone (1995; 2015);

Theogonia: Leone (2019).

4 Carmina Iliaca: Leone (1995: 102-243); Theogonia: Leone (2019: 65-70); Exegesis: Papathomopoulos (2007: 417-460);

Allegories: Cramer (1836: 376-384) and Matranga (1850: 599-618); Letters and Histories: Leone (1972: 158-174; 2007:

529-569). Even the poems that follow the Histories are furnished with scholia, see Leone (1969-1970: 147-151).

5 See Pizzone (2017).

6 For Tzetzean book epigrams on the tragedians, see Tomadaki and van Opstall (2019); on the Exegesis:

Papathomopoulos (2007: 3), Budelmann (2002: 151); scholia on Aristophanes: Massa Positano (1960: LXXXIV, XCII, 233.18-24), Pizzone (2020: 679); scholia on Lycophron: Scheer (1908: 1.3-6, 398.4-13), De Stefani and Magnelli (2009: 615-616), De Stefani (2014: 391-392); scholia on Oppian: Colonna (1963; 1964), De Stefani (2014:

392); scholia on Hesiod: Colonna (1953b: 27-39). For further inquiries, I refer to DBBE and the catalogues of Vassis (2005; 2011).

7 See below Chapter 2 and 3.

8 On Byzantine didactic poetry, see e.g. Lauxtermann (2009), Hörandner (2012; 2019). On Tzetzes, see now van den Berg (2020).

(31)

1.1 Tzetzes “accountant” of historians: some general trends from the verse scholia on Thucydides

Tzetzes wrote verse scholia on the two main classical historians, Thucydides and Herodotus.⁹ At first sight, Tzetzes’ verse scholia on these authors show common trends as regards form and content. They address textual issues of the ancient manuscripts where they are found and comment upon the grammar, style and classical references of the main text. The larger and probably better known cycle of epigrams is devoted to Thucydides and found in the margins of Heidelberg, Pal. gr. 252 (10th century). Luzzatto identifies fifty verse scholia in the margins of this authoritative manuscript of Thucydides (E for the editors).¹⁰ Luzzatto also claims that the epigrams are autograph, i.e. jotted down in this manuscript by Tzetzes himself. Significantly, the same hand is found again in the margins and interlinear spaces of a manuscript with Tzetzes’ commentary on Hermogenes and traces of his Λογισμοί (Voss. Gr. Q. 1).¹¹ Let us begin with the last line of f. 133v, where a symbol is placed over κλῄσειν in Thucydides’ Histories 4.8.7 and repeated in the lower margin to open a verse scholium (number 25):

Κλῇθρον, κατεκλῄσθησαν Ἀττικῷ τρόπῳ Τζέτζου φρονῶν πᾶς τοῖς λόγοις πεπεισμένος δίφθογγον οὐ γράψειας, ἀλλ’ ἦτα μόνον.

τοὺς βουβάλους δ’ ἔασον δυσμαθεστάτους

ἁπανταχοῦ δίφθογγα ταυταῒ γράφειν, 5

οἳ τὸ σκότος φῶς ὡς τὸ φῶς φασὶ σκότος, Κίρκης τραφέντες χοιρεῶσι τῆς νέας.¹²

9 For Tzetzes’ verse scholia on Thucydides, see Hude (1927), Scott (1981), Baldwin (1982), Maltese (1995: 370- 371), Luzzatto (1999), Reinsch (2006: 757-758), Kaldellis (2015: 65-79), Pontani (2015: 384-385). For Tzetzes’ verse scholia on Herodotus, see Luzzatto (2000), Cantore (2012; 2013: 82-93).

10 Luzzatto (1999). I follow her numeration of the epigrams and print her text with minor changes after inspection of the manuscript (available online at https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpgraec252/0001).

The interpretation of these epigrams follows closely Luzzatto (1999) and Kaldellis (2015).

11 Aglae Pizzone first published about these findings at the blog of the Centre for Medieval Literature: John Tzetzes in the margins of the Voss. Gr. Q1: discovering autograph notes of a Byzantine scholar (https://cml.sdu.dk/blog/cml- blog-john-tzetzes-in-the-margins-of-the-voss-gr-q1-discovering-autograph-notes-of-a-byzantine-scholar). See now Pizzone (2020: 654-656). Note that the same hand also wrote verse scholia in Voss. Gr. Q. 1, similar to those of E; see e.g. Pizzone (2020: 680). On the Λογισμοί, see below.

12 See Luzzatto (1999: 18-20). Translation after Kaldellis (2015: 73): “Κλῇθρον, κατεκλῄσθησαν in the Attic manner/ every one of you sensible men, persuaded by the words of Tzetzes,/ do not write with diphthong [ει], but only with eta,/ and leave the most ignorant buffalos/ to write these with diphthongs everywhere, [5]/ those who call the darkness light just as they call the light darkness,/ bred in the pigsties of the new Circe”.

(32)

This is one of the numerous verse scholia suggesting corrections or explaining orthography. But in this epigram we can also observe four characteristic dimensions of Tzetzes’ dialogue with the ancient texts, their tradition and their reception. First, the author gives instructions to a student-reader-scribe (25.1-3), supported by a display of grammatical expertise and knowledge of ancient Greek dialects. Second, Tzetzes represents himself as a reliable source of authority, which is enhanced by the use of his own name in 25.2 as in the third person. Third, the attack to contemporary scholars, disparaged with offensive and witty names are hallmarks of Tzetzes’ polemical discourse (25.4-7). For example, βούβαλος (25.4) or similar terms are repeatedly used by Tzetzes to demean his adversaries.¹³ Fourth, an allusion to the obscurity of the main text in 25.6. The beginning of the poem (25.1-3) presents, therefore, a positive and constructive movement, while the final section (25.4-7), a rather negative and polemical one. The stances that Tzetzes adopts towards the main text and its author and towards the scribe, the reader and his competitors can be observed further throughout the cycle.

In the right and lower margin of f. 26r, for example, two verse scholia (numbers 3-4) comment on the orthography of two different words at Thucydides’ Histories 1.63.2-3, ἱππῆς and τροπαῖον:¹⁴

Ἱππῆς τίς ἐξώρθωσε δίφθογγον γράφων;

ἦτα δὲ γράψον Ἀττικῷ τρόπῳ γράφων·

ὁ σκύλλος οὗτος Ἀττικώτατα γράφει.

τὰ πάντα ταῦτα τοιγαροῦν ἦτα γράφε,

ἱππῆς, ἀριστῆς, Φωκαῆς, πλὴν κυρίων· 5

13 See Luzzatto (1999: 19 n. 20), Agapitos (2017: 11, 24-25, 33-34) and e.g. Tzetzes’ Histories 5.828, 9.958, 9.960, 9.967, 10.178, 11.215, 11.221, 11.224; scholia on Tzetzes’ Histories 1.396, 3.61, 3.617, 4.837 (Leone 2007: 533.5, 542.1, 544.7, 548.19); scholium on Tzetzes’ Letter 1 (Leone 1972: 159.6); scholium on Aristophanes’ Wealth 543 (Massa Positano 1960: 131.25) and Clouds 965a (Holwerda 1960: 596.14), which is the same as scholium on Oppian’s Halieutica 1.266 (recte 1.200, Bussemaker 1849: 276.54). Circe, on the other hand, is mentioned in another polemical context in Tzetzes’ Histories 10.64-76 (see Luzzatto 1999: 20; Agapitos 2017: 18-21). Now, one may wonder whether the “new Circe” (25.7) constitutes only an ornamental use of the myth (see e.g. poem 34.2 below), or a particular patroness and her circle are meant here too. Tzetzes himself worked for female commissioners, see e.g. Rhoby (2010). On Tzetzes’ misogyny, see Agapitos (2017: 15-17), to which his hostility towards the mythographer Demo can be added: Allegories of the Odyssey, Proem 32-34; see Cesaretti (1991: 138- 139) and Hunger (1954: 43-44). In fact, in Tzetzes’ Histories 10.64-76 the ἀτεχνία of Circe and her filthy followers is contrasted with the τέχνη of a female writer, empress Eudokia. Now Pizzone (2020: 667-672) brings forward new evidence of the same elements in a similar polemical context from the rediscovered fragment of the Λογισμοί. Her explanation of these images through the socio-historical background of 12th-century Constantinople is very compelling and it is not at odds with a possible allusion to a patroness.

14 The two words are marked in the main text with the same symbol that opens poem 3. There is no clear separation between poems 3 and 4 and thus they could be considered as one single poem. In 3.1 the accent in τίς in the manuscript indicates that it is a question.

(33)

τὰ κύρια μόνα δὲ δίφθογγα γράφε, Δημοσθένεις λέγω τε καὶ τὰ τοιάδε.

καὶ τὸ τροπαῖον μὴ τρόπαιόν μοι γράφε·

ἂν Ἀττικῶς γράφῃς δε ταῦτα σοὶ λέγω.

ἄλλῃ δὲ γλωσσῶν εἰ γράφεις μοι τοὺς λόγους, 10 δίφθογγον ἱππεῖς καὶ τρόπαιόν μοι γράφε.¹⁵

The intervention seems to be motivated by corrections in the manuscript by a later hand of ἱππῆς into ἱππεῖς. Through insistent imperatives (γράψον v. 2; γράφε vv. 4, 6, 8, 11), Tzetzes teaches the reader how to write properly, again according to the Attic dialect (Ἀττικῷ τρόπῳ v. 2, Ἀττικώτατα v. 3, Ἀττικῶς v. 2). Tzetzes contrasts his learned opinions with the ones of his opponents (see τίς v. 1). The construction of himself as an authority converges with the impertinence towards the author of the main text, dubbed as cub or puppy (σκύλλος v. 3).

These strategies can adopt an even harsher and less tolerant way. In f. 185r, containing Thucydides’ Histories 1.18.1-5, two verse scholia occur in the right margin (numbers 33- 34). Tzetzes first criticizes a passage of the text (paraphrased in 33.1-2) for its confusing syntax, calling it a solecism. Elsewhere he justifies Thucydides’ obscure style by invoking a feature of his dialect. For example, in verse scholium number 29 (f. 183v) he explains:

γλώσσης νόησον Ἀττικῆς εἶναι τόδε,/ […] μὴ δ’ αὖ σόλοικον μηδαμῶς νόει τόδε (“Understand that this is characteristic of the Attic dialect,/ […] so under no circumstances think this is a solecism”).¹⁶ This time, he does not follow the same logic (33.3-8):

Τζέτζης σολοικίζουσιν ἐντάττει λόγοις·

οὐκ οἶδεν Ἀττίκισμα τουτοῒ λέγειν.

οὕτω γράφων δε σοῖς περιστρόφοις λόγοις, 5

πέφευγας ὃς κρίνειν σε τεχνικῶς θέλει.

πηλὸς λιθουργῶν συγκαλύπτει φαυλίαν, γραφῆς σκότος δε τοὺς σολοίκους τῶν λόγων.¹⁷

15 See Luzzatto (1999: 61-63). Translation after Kaldellis (2015: 70): “Who corrected ἱππῆς by writing a diphthong?/ Write it with an eta if you write in the Attic manner./ This puppy writes in a most Attic way./ So write all the words of this kind with an eta:/ ἱππῆς, ἀριστῆς, Φωκαῆς, except proper nouns. [5]/ Proper nouns alone you should write with a diphthong,/ I mean Δημοσθένεις and the like./ And don’t write τρόπαιον for τροπαῖον./ I tell you to do this if you want to write in Attic./ But if you want to write in some other dialect, [10]/

then write ἱππεῖς with a diphthong and τρόπαιον”.

16 See also the formulaic verse σολοικοειδές, οὐ σόλοικον τυγχάνει (“It has the aspect of a solecism, but it is no solecism”) that occurs in poems 15 (f. 93v), 28 (f. 183v) and 47 (f. 290r).

17 See Luzzatto (1999: 35-37). Translation after Kaldellis (2015: 75): “Tzetzes classifies this among the solecisms of speech,/ he just cannot call this an Atticism./ Writing this way in your convoluted clauses, [5]/ you have

(34)

The last four verses of this poem (33.5-8) address outspokenly the author in the second person and strike again against his abstruseness, as deceptive and contrary to the τέχνη.

We can fully understand now the attack against Tzetzes’ adversaries in poem 25.6: not only do the buffaloes ignore the τέχνη of the Attic dialect, but they also praise Thucydides’ misleading σκότος (33.8). Moreover, in the beginning of the second verse scholium in f. 185r (34.1-2), Tzetzes compares the stylistic difficulties of the author, addressed again by Tzetzes in the second person, with those provoked by the scribe: τὸ σὸν σκοτεινὸν καὶ τὸ τοῦ βιβλογράφου/ Χάρυβδιν οἵαν ἐξεγείρουσι λόγοις.¹⁸ The labour of the scribe is a constant target of Tzetzes’ complaints and satirical remarks, as the formulaic label κόπρος βιβλογράφου reveals (see poems 30-31, ff. 183v-184v).¹⁹

Tzetzes’ criticisms, however, are not limited to grammatical, stylistic or textual remarks. He even calls into question the content of what Thucydides recounts. At the beginning of book 6, Thucydides refers to the etymology of Italy, allegedly derived from the name of a Sicilian king: καὶ ἡ χώρα ἀπὸ Ἰταλοῦ, βασιλέως τινὸς Σικελῶν, τοὔνομα τοῦτο ἔχοντος, οὕτως Ἰταλία ἐπωνομάσθη (Thucydides’ Histories 6.2.4). In our manuscript the passage is marked with a cross that also introduces a verse scholium in the right margin of f. 214r (number 35), after the heading σημείωσαι ἱστορίαν. In this epigram, Thucydides is again addressed in an irreverent way and his etymology rejected: οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτως οὐδαμῶς, Θουκυδίδη (“It is not like this, Thucydides, not at all”, 35.1). An alternative aetiology is told, involving Heracles and the Latin word vitulus (35.2-9).²⁰ The poem is closed by a warning addressed to ancient historians with significant programmatic overtones (35.10-11): Τζέτζην παλαιὸς πᾶς πτοοῦ χρονογράφος·/ λαθεῖν γὰρ αὐτὸν οὐδὲ δαίμων ἰσχύει.²¹

The mission to correct the style and grammar and control the truth and consistency of the classics is asserted openly, such as in the scholium to Aristophanes’ Frogs 1328:²²

eluded those who want to scrutinize you according to the τέχνη./ Just as mud disguises poor work by the mason,/obscurity of writing here masks solecism in speech”.

18 See Luzzatto (1999: 37-39). Translation after Kaldellis (2015: 76): “Your obscurity along with that of the copyist/ rouse up such a Charybdis in the narrative”.

19 See Luzzatto (1999: 26, 30).

20 For the sources of Tzetzes and loci similes in his oeuvre, see Luzzatto (1999: 77-78). To these it could be added the scholium to Lycophron 1232 (Scheer 1908: 353.3-8).

21 See Luzzatto (1999: 75-76). Translation after Kaldellis (2015: 76): “Every one of you ancient historians fear Tzetzes,/ not even a supernatural spirit can escape his notice!”. However, note that the manuscript seems to read παλαιοῖς.

22 Koster (1962: 1077.49-1079.89). After consultation of the manuscript Ambr. C 222 inf., f. 103r (now available at http://213.21.172.25/0b02da8280051c1e), I was able to make two minor improvements to Koster’s edition (I keep his punctuation though). On this manuscript (last quarter of the 12th, copied by a scholar closely connected with Tzetzes), see Mazzucchi (2003; 2004).

(35)

ὧν πασῶν [sc. Βίβλων] λογισμοὺς βίβλος μία ἐμοῦ περιέχει στίχοις ἰάμβοις τοῖς πλείοσιν, οὐκ ὀλίγοις δὲ καὶ μέτρων ἑτέρων· καὶ ἕτεραι δὲ βίβλοι σποράδην ἐμοὺς ἔχουσιν ἑτέρων σοφῶν λογισμούς, οὐ μάτην καὶ ἀναιτίως οὐδὲ κατ’ ἔχθραν ἐπεμβαίνοντός μού τινων, ἀλλά τινας μὲν ἐλέγχοντος τοῦ περὶ τὴν τέχνην ἕνεκα πλημμελοῦς καὶ τοῦ διαμαρτάνειν πραγμάτων ἢ χρόνων, ἢ αὐτοὺς λέγειν ἑαυτοῖς ἐναντία […] ταύτην ἐμοῦ τὴν βίβλον ἀναλεξάμενος, ὅστις ἄν γε [καὶ add. codex]

βούλοιτο, Αἰσχύλου τε εὕροι καὶ Εὐριπίδου καὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν αἰτιάματα, πλημμελείᾳ τῇ περὶ τὴν τέχνην καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑποπεπτωκότας τοῖς λογισμοῖς, οὐ μέντοι διὰ ψευδοῦς [ψευδῶς ut vid. codex] γελοιάζουσαν κωμῳδίαν οὐδὲ δυσμένειαν.

Of all these books, one book of mine contains the accounts, most of them in iambic verses, but quite a few also in other metres. And other books have here and there my accounts of other wise men, not because I attack moved by enmity towards some, nor in vain or without reason, but rather censuring some for an error regarding the τέχνη or for missing the facts or the chronology, or because they say things contradicting themselves […] After reading this book of mine, whoever would want to, would find the faults of Aeschylus, Euripides and many others, included in my accounts for their error regarding the τέχνη or the truth, yet not for the sake of jesting comedy or ill will with falsehood.

The Accounts (Λογισμοί) here mentioned is the title of a work by Tzetzes, widely considered to be lost until in 2020 Aglae Pizzone brought to light a manuscript where it is partially preserved.²³ Tzetzes’ description invites us to an identification of them with our verse scholia. First, these accounts are in verse, mainly comment upon ancient authors and can also be found occasionally (σποράδην) in other manuscripts. Second, the motivations in Tzetzes’ enterprise of watching (ἐλέγχειν) the form (τέχνη) and content (ἱστορία) of the text commented upon match precisely those of his verse scholia.

The connection of the Λογισμοί with Tzetzes’ verse scholia has been first proposed by Luzzatto, who also refers to Tzetzes’ Histories 6.399-403, where Tzetzes specifies the objects of his critiques, among which historians and chroniclers (ἱστορικοὶ καὶ χρονικοὶ).²⁴ When consulting these books, which did not belong to him (ὢν ἀβίβλης), he annotated the necessary accounts in their margins: ἐκείναις [sc. βίβλοις] παρενέγραφε

23 On the Λογισμοί, see primarily Pizzone (2020), who corrected a long-lasting misunderstanding in Wendel (1948:

1990, 2004; see Luzzatto 1999: 74 n. 18), by which the Accounts were equated to Tzetzes’ commentary on Hermogenes in political verse (Walz 1834: 670-686; Cramer 1837: 1-148). As she points out, the catalogue of the library already records some of the Accounts’ verses in ff. 212v-239v; see De Meyier (1955: 93). Pizzone masterfully reconstructs the possible stages of composition of the oeuvre and the associations between imperial administration, authenticity and authorship that emanate already from its title. In this respect, see now Pizzone (2020b).

24 Luzzatto (1998: 71-72; 1999: 156-161).

Using poetry to read the past : unedited Byzantine verse scholia on historians in the margins of medieval manuscripts

Using Poetry to Read the Past

Unedited Byzantine Verse Scholia on Historians in the Margins of Medieval Manuscripts

Acknowledgements

List of Abbreviations

List of Tables

List of Figures

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part 1

Herodotus

Chapter 1

Tzetzes’ verse scholia

1.1 Tzetzes “accountant” of historians: some general trends from the verse scholia on Thucydides